CCI Defends Global Turnover-Based Fines Amid Apple’s Legal Challenge

India’s competition regulator has defended a provision that allows penalties to be calculated based on a company’s global turnover. The Competition Commission of India presented this stance while opposing Apple’s challenge to the 2024 amendment to the competition law.

Apple has approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that the provision could lead to disproportionate penalties. The outcome of the case could have wider implications for several multinational companies operating in India.

Background of the Legal Challenge

In November, Apple filed a petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of the 2024 amendment to India’s competition law. The law permits regulators to calculate penalties using a company’s global turnover instead of limiting fines to India-specific revenue.

Apple argued that this approach could result in excessive penalties for alleged violations that occurred solely within India. Other multinational companies such as Amazon, Pernod Ricard, and Publicis could also be impacted by the ruling.

CCI’s Rationale for Global Turnover Calculation

In a court filing dated December 15, the CCI stated that the law brings India’s competition enforcement framework in line with international practices followed in jurisdictions such as the European Union. The regulator said relying only on India-specific turnover, particularly for large global digital firms, fails to create an effective deterrent.

According to the CCI, penalties linked to global turnover better reflect the scale and economic power of multinational companies. The filing marked the first time the watchdog detailed its reasoning for the amendment.

Apple’s Objections and Financial Exposure

Apple contended that applying global turnover could lead to penalties that are disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The company said the law could expose it to fines of up to $38 billion following a CCI investigation that found abuse of dominance in its app store operations.

Apple has denied the allegations made by the regulator. The company also expressed concern that the methodology could set a precedent for sharply higher penalties across future cases.

Dispute Over Retrospective Application

Apple accused the CCI of illegally applying the amended law retrospectively in another ongoing proceeding. The regulator rejected this claim, stating that it has always had the authority to impose penalties of up to 10% of a company’s turnover.

The CCI said the amendment merely clarifies how turnover should be interpreted for penalty calculations. It added that clarificatory provisions explain legislative intent and can operate retrospectively under the law.

Read More: JPMorgan Set to Assume Control of Apple Card from Goldman Sachs.

Conclusion

The legal challenge places renewed focus on how India balances regulatory enforcement with fair penalty frameworks for multinational firms. The government maintains that global turnover-based fines strengthen deterrence and align with international norms.

Apple continues to argue that such measures risk disproportionate punishment for localised conduct. The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the matter on January 27, 2026.

Disclaimer: This blog has been written exclusively for educational purposes. The securities mentioned are only examples and not recommendations. This does not constitute a personal recommendation/investment advice. It does not aim to influence any individual or entity to make investment decisions. Recipients should conduct their own research and assessments to form an independent opinion about investment decisions.

Investments in the securities market are subject to market risks, read all the related documents carefully before investing.